Whenpolitical strife assumes open forms to any extent, it is remarkable how
quickly and vividly events put every tactical step to the test. Even before many
of the delegates of the All-Russian Conference of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party have had time to return to their localities and
report to their
Party organisations, a totally new light has been thrown on the vexed question
of blocs with the Cadets, which is now the central political
question of the day.

Atthe Conference of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party it never
occurred to any delegate that the Social-Democrats could even slightly weaken,
or modify in any way, their independent tactical slogans in the election
campaign. Formally, the corner-stone of the resolution submitted by the Central
Committee and adopted by 18 votes to 14 (the Bolsheviks, Poles and Letts) was
the complete independence of the platform and slogans of the
R.S.D.L.P. Alliances of any permanence with other parties on the basis of any
“relaxation” whatsoever of our political platform were absolutely
prohibited. And the whole controversy between the Right and Left wings of the
Social-Democratic Party. revolved around the questions: “Are the
Right-wing Social-Democrats adhering to this principle in actual practice? Are
they not violating it by sanctioning blocs with the Cadets? Is not the
distinction between ’technical’ and ideological agreements artificial,
fictitious and merely a verbal one?”

But... apparently, in our Party too, i.e., in its actual
“constitution”, there is an institution of the nature of a Senate;
by means of Senate interpretations, there is a possibility of Party
“laws”, decisions of official Party bodies, being
turned into their very opposite. The new Senate interpretation of the decisions
of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party came, as might have been
expected, from Geneva. It was published in the Cadet newspaper
Tovarishch in the form of “An Open
Answer”[3]
(just
like Lassalle!) by G. Plekhanov to a reader of that paper “who does not
consider him self either a bourgeois or a Social-Democrat”. Our Party
quasi-Lassalle hurries to the assistance of the reader of a news paper which is
virtually the organ of the renegades of Social-Democracy.

Thereader of Tovarishch asked G. Plekhanov, among other things,
“what, in his opinion, could serve as a joint election platform of the
Left and extreme Left parties”. G. Plekhanov answered: “To this
question there can be no other answer than: a Duma with full power.”

“Therecan be no other answer”.... These words of our quasi-Lassalle
are probably fated to become “historic”, at least in the Gogol sense
of the term. Plekhanov condescend ed once to listen to a report in which it was
stated that there was a certain Central Committee of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party, that some sort of an All-Russian Conference of that
Party was being convened, and that both the Central Committee and that
Conference were drawing up a reply to questions which are of interest not only
to Madame Kuskova and Mr. Prokopovich, Plekhanov’s present colleagues, but also
to the socialist workers of Russia. Not in the least disturbed by this,
G. Plekhanov proclaims:
“There can be no other answer than mine.” And these high and
mighty words are published in a Cadet newspaper at a time when the whole reading
public of Russia already knows of another answer, given by all
the representatives both of the regional bodies and of the central body of the
whole Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.

Verily,this is a “history” of the sort that
Nozdrev[4]
was so often
the hero of.

However,let us get to the point of this unique and inimit able answer of our
inimitable G. Plekhanov.

Firstof all we note that he cannot even conceive of the possibility of
agreements at the first stage without a joint election platform. We Bolsheviks
find this opinion greatly to our liking. By this admission, Plekhanov has done
the
Mensheviks a disservice. We have repeatedly pointed out, at the Conference, in
controversy with the Mensheviks and Bundists, and also in No. 8 of
Proletary,[1]
that agreements at the first stage will inevitably
affect our Party position in coming before the masses and that
consequently, whatever our desires and plans may be, such agreements will
inevitably acquire the colouring of a certain ideological
rapprochement, and will in some measure obscure, diminish and blunt
the political independence of the Social-Democratic Party.
G. Plekhanov, with his characteristic adroitness and party tact, has confirmed
our charges against the Mensheviks. In fact, he has gone even further than our
accusation by advocating a joint platform, i.e., a definite
ideological bloc with the Cadets.

Itturns out that not only in the Russian state, but also in the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party, Senate interpretations discredit those for
whose benefit they are issued.

Further,let the reader ponder over the direct meaning of Plekhanov’s
“Cadet-Social-Democratic” slogan: “a Duma with full
power”—irrespective of the attitude of the different parties towards
it. The words “a Duma with full power” signify a demand for full
power for the Duma. Which Duma? Evidently, the one to which Russian citizens
will now elect deputies on the basis of the Law of December 11 and the Senate
interpretations. For this Duma, G. Plekhanov proposes to demand full
power. Evidently, he is convinced that this Duma will not be a Black-Hundred
Duma, for he could not demand full power for a Black-Hundred Duma. To issue the
slogan of “a Duma with full power” and at the same time to shout
about the serious danger of a Black-Hundred Duma, is to defeat one’s own
case. It is tantamount to confirming the opinion of the Bolsheviks that there is
really no serious danger of a Black-Hundred Duma being elected, and that the
Cadets are either inventing or in some cases exaggerating this danger for their
own selfish ends, namely, to shake the faith of the workers and of all
revolutionary democrats in their own strength, to free the Cadet Party of the
“danger from the Left” which is really threatening
it. Rech itself, the official organ of the Cadets, has acknowledged
that danger
in the report of the Cadets on the progress of the election campaign in
St. Petersburg Gubernia.

Letus pass on to the real political meaning of Plekhanov’s slogan. Its inventor
is in raptures over it. “This general formula,” he writes, “exactly
expresses in algebraic form the political task that is most urgent today for the
Lefts and the extreme Lefts”, while allowing them to preserve all their
other demands absolutely intact. “The Cadets’ conception of a Duma with
full power cannot be the same as that of the Social-Democrats. But both need a
Duma with full power. Therefore, both must fight for it.”

Itis clear from these words that Plekhanov is fully aware that this slogan is
bound to be understood differently by the Cadets and the Social-Democrats. The
slogan is the same, “common” to both, but the Cadets’
“conception” of this slogan cannot be the same as that of
the Social-Democrats.

Inthat case, what is the purpose of a common slogan? What is the use of
submitting slogans and platforms to the masses at all?

Isit only for the sake of appearances, to cover up some thing that should not
be explained to the masses, to perform behind the backs of the people a
parliamentary manoeuvre that promises all sorts of advantages? Or is it to raise
the class-consciousness of the masses and really explain to them their present
political tasks?

Everyoneknows that bourgeois politicians always come forward with all sorts of
slogans, programmes, and platforms to deceive the people. Bourgeois politicians
always, especially before elections, call themselves liberals, progressives,
democrats and even “radical socialists” solely for the
purpose of catching votes and deceiving the people. This is a universal
phenomenon in all capitalist countries. That is why Marx and Engels even
referred to bourgeois deputies as people
“die das Volk vertreten und
zertreten”, i. e., who represent and repress the people through
their parliamentary powers.[5]

Andhere we have the “veteran” Russian Social-Democrat, the founder
of Social-Democracy, proposing a platform for the first general Party election
campaign which it is known will be interpreted by the Cadets in one way and by
the Social-Democrats in another! What does it all mean?

Ifthe Cadets and the Social-Democrats cannot have the same conception of a Duma
with full power, neither can the broad masses of the people, for the
Cadets and the Social-Democrats represent the interests of certain
classes, their strivings and prejudices. Evidently, Plekhanov regards the
Cadets’ conception of a Duma with full power as wrong, and all wrong
conceptions of political aims are harmful to the people. Consequently,
Plekhanov is advancing a slogan in a form that is known to be
harmful to the people, for it leaves a wrong conception unexplained and
concealed. To put it simply and bluntly, this means deceiving the workers
and the whole people for the sake of an appearance of unity between the
Cadets and the Social-Democrats.

Whatis wrong with the Cadets’ conception of a Duma with full power? Plekhanov
does not say. This silence proves, firstly, that Plekhanov is using the election
campaign (the presentation of an election platform is a step in the election
campaign) not to clarify the minds of the people but to obscure them. Secondly,
it takes away all meaning from Plekhanov’s conclusion that “both the
Cadets and the Social-Democrats need a Duma with full power”. This is
sheer non sense concealed by verbal trickery: two different parties need the
same thing, which each conceives of differently! Which means that it is not the
same thing: the first comer will convict Plekhanov here of a logical
blunder. We might as well symbolise both an autocratic monarchy and a democratic
republic with the letter “a” and say that different parties are free
to substitute different arithmetical values in this general algebraic
formula. That would be typical Plekhanov logic, or rather Plekhanov sophistry.

Asa matter of fact, Plekhanov utters a downright falsehood when he
says that both the Cadets and the Social-Democrats need a Duma with full power
or, what is more, a popular representative assembly with full power, which he
discusses all through the second part of his article. A popular representative
assembly with full power is a constituent assembly; moreover it is a
constituent assembly not side by side with the monarch, but after the
overthrow of the tsarist government. If Plekhanov has forgotten this simple
truth, we advise him to read the Programme of the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party, especially the last paragraph, which deals with this
very point.

TheCadets do not need such a popular representative assembly with really full
power; it would be dangerous for them and fatal to the interests they
represent. It would exclude the monarchy, so dear to their hearts and valuable
for their bourgeois pockets. It would deprive them of their hope of redemption
payments for the landlords’ lands. All this is so true that even
Plekhanov, in No. 6 of his Dnevnik, speaks of the Cadet’s selfish class
distrust of the idea of a constituent assembly and says that, fearing a
constituent assembly, the Cadets are making peace with the Stolypin
gang.

Wealready quoted these passages from Plekhanov’s Dnevnik, No. 6, in
No. 8 of
Proletary,[2]
and pointed out that Plekhanov must now withdraw
the statements he made but yesterday. His phrase “the Cadets also need a
Duma with full power” is just such a withdrawal of his own words.

Plekhanov’smain falsehood logically and inevitably leads to a number
of others. It is false to say that a “popular representative
assembly with full power is in itself a preliminary condition for the
achievement of all the other ... demands of all the progressive parties”,
that “without it, not one of these demands will be achieved”, that
the struggle of the Lefts and extreme Lefts will begin only when “it [the
popular representative assembly with full power] becomes a fact”. A
popular representative assembly with full power is the culmination of the
revolution, its final and complete victory. But the Cadets want to halt the
revolution, to put a stop to it by small concessions, and they say so openly. By
trying to make the workers and the whole people believe that the Cadets are
capable of fighting for the complete victory of the revolution, Plekhanov is
thrice deceiving the masses of the people.

“Sofar we have only a Mr. Stolypin with full power,” writes Plekhanov. We
do not know whether this is a slip of the pen, or another example of false Cadet
language (“a Duma with full power = a tsarist Duma with Ministers
appointed by the tsar from the Duma majority”), or a ruse to escape the censor,
Far from having full power, Stolypin is just an insignificant lackey of
the tsar and of the tsar’s Black-Hundred Court gang. If the pogrom
disclosures in the Duma have not convinced Plekhanov of this, let him read
what the liberal newspapers say bout the all-powerful influence of the
Union of the Russian People.

“Now,”says Plekhanov, “the Left and the extreme Left parties must
join forces against those who do not want a popular representative assembly with
full power, or, perhaps, any popular representative assembly at all.”

Consequently,they must oppose the Cadets, who do not want a popular
representative assembly with full power.

Plekhanovscored nicely against himself when, ostensibly combating
doctrinairism, he set us n example of the worst Jesuitical doctrinairism. From
the standpoint of their group, the Bolsheviks could rejoice at his performance,
for a stronger blow at Menshevik tactics could hardly be imagined. As members
of the united Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, however, we feel ashamed
of it.

Theofficial organ of the Cadets, Rech, answered Plekhanov in a way
that will, perhaps, cure even the tamest Social-Democrats of their opportunist
illusions. Its first reply, a leading article in issue No. 226, of November 25,
consists entirely of mockery over Plekhanov’s proffered hand, and it is the
mockery of a liberal who has not forgotten the attacks that Plekhanov and his
Iskra colleagues made on the opportunism of the liberals. “In
this case too,” says the Cadet organ, jeering at Plekhanov,
“Mr. Plekhanov is making highly commendable and praiseworthy efforts to
move his colleagues a little to the Right of the most Right positions they
occupy.” Nevertheless ... we must object.

TheCadet’s objections are the type of answer that a factory owner would give to
a worker who has come to beg some thing of him after dissociating himself from
his fellow-workers who are making a joint demand backed by a strike. You come
to me asking for a favour? Good. But what use are you to me if your unreasonable
colleagues do not follow your example? What use are you to me if you do not go
all the way? A Duma with full power? Well, well! Do you think I am going to
discredit myself in the eyes of the people who
stand for law and order? You must say: a Cabinet. consisting of members of the
Duma majority. Then we shall agree to a joint platform with the
Social-Democrats!

Suchis the gist of the reply in Rech, which is studded with subtle
ridicule both of Plekhanov’s
naive
“algebra” and of the fact that
he, in November 1904, was a member of the leading body of the Social-Democrats
(Plekhanov was then a member of the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and
chairman of the Supreme “Council” of the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party), the body which rejected the “famous Paris
agreement”[6]
with the bourgeois democrats. At that time we had an “algebraic
symbol”, namely, “a democratic regime”, says Rech,
ironically. By that we meant a constitutional monarchy. The
Socialist-Revolutionaries, who agreed to the pact, meant a democratic
republic. You refused then, Mr. G. V. Plekhanov. Have you now grown wiser? We
Cadets commend you for it, but if you want to talk business, you must
go farther to the right.

AndRech openly admits that the Cadets were also leading the people by
the nose with the slogan of a “constituent assembly”. We Cadets
wanted a constituent assembly “with the preservation of the
prerogatives of the monarch”, and not a republican constituent
assembly. It was to our advantage to attract the sympathies of the masses by
means of this deception, but now it is more important for us to win the sympathy
of the tsarist gang. Therefore, away with this “dangerous”,
“ambiguous” and “hopeless” slogan of “a Duma with
full power”, which “panders to pernicious revolutionary
illusions”. We demand that the Social-Democrats stick to their former,
Central Committee slogan: support for a Cabinet consisting of members of the
Duma majority. “with all the consequences” that follow from
it. And these consequences are, not to weaken, but to strengthen
(sic!) the Cadet majority in the Duma.

Inthe next issue of the Rech the editorial specially explains to the
tsar’s Black-Hundred gang (ostensibly explaining the question to Plekhanov) that
the Cadets do not need a Duma “with full power”. To
proclaim the Duma as having full power means a coup d’état. The Cadets will
never agree to that. “We Cadets are not at all striving for a Duma with
full power, nor are we obliged to do so.” “Has Mr. Plekhanov,
in spite of his usual perspicacity, failed to learn” this lesson
“from the course of events”?

Yes,the Cadets’ jeer at Plekhanov’s usual perspicacity hit the nail on the
head. The whole course of events of the Russian revolution has failed to teach
Plekhanov to understand the Cadets. He has received a well-merited punishment
in that the Cadets have scornfully rejected the hand proffered by a
Social-Democrat acting independently of his Party and contrary to its wishes.

Thereply Rech gave to Plekhanov is also of general political
importance. The Cadets are swiftly moving to the Right. They do not hesitate to
say that they will come to terms with the Black-Hundred monarchy and destroy
“pernicious revolutionary illusions”.

Theworkers of the whole of Russia will, we feel sure, turn this lesson to good
account. Instead of entering into blocs with the Cadets they will wage an
independent election campaign, win over the revolutionary bourgeoisie and sweep
aside into the slough of political treachery the whole gang of bourgeois
politicians who are deceiving the people with phrase-mongering about
“people’s freedom”.

[6]
The “famous Paris agreement”—an
agreement on “basic principles and demands” in the struggle against
the autocracy adopted in November 1904 at the Paris Conference attended by
delegates from the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the Polish Socialist Party,
Georgian Bourgeois Nationalist Party of Socialist-Federalists
(“Sakartvelo”), and others. The conference of delegates of the
R.S.D.L.P. and national Social-Democratic organisations convened by the Council
of the R.S.D.L.P. refused to take part in the
Paris Conference.